I have a copy of the Japanese Colloquial Version. I'm contrasting it to the Japanese Living Bible online. I notice a lot of difference between the two. I believe the latter takes more liberties with the translation, but I want to know which sounds best to Japanese readers? Below is the translation for 2 Corinthians 12:9.

Japanese Colloquial Version:ところが、主が言われた、「わたしの恵みはあなたに十分である。わたしの力は弱いところに完全にあらわれる」。

Well, in English I like the NIV, the ESV and the RSV. The Revised Standard Version keeps some of the poetic style of the King James version, but it's outdated compared to the NIV and ESV. NIV is most readable out of the three. By asking which is best, I really just had to keep the title short and hoped people would state the differences between the Japanese versions like I did above for the English ones.

I read an article about a university study that compared accuracy of translation and lack of bias in some of the world's major Bible versions, I can't remember where it was done but anyways the New World Translation was spoken of really highly, so I got it. Best part, it's free here: http://www.jw.org/index.html?option=QrYQZRQVNlVlYRYou can get a free MP3 or AAC. [Or if you want a real one just wait for a JW to show up, it's still free. Then you gotta deal with people though. (I like free stuff...)]

I dunno, what do Japanese speakers think of it?? It's supposed to be in each language's modern usage but still accurate...I've compared NWT with KJ and Gideons (can't remember the actual name...) It still requires a pretty decent vocabulary. I like that it makes it obvious which texts are considered spurious, handy dandy if you actually care whether a translator just added something in to make a monarch/overlord happy haha.

Cyborg Ninja wrote:...... By asking which is best, I really just had to keep the title short and hoped people would state the differences between the Japanese versions like I did above for the English ones.

Are the Japanese versions translations of the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts or translations of English translations of Greek and/or Latin translations?

Don't complain to me that people kick you when you're down. It's your own fault for lying there

SakeIt2Me wrote:I read an article about a university study that compared accuracy of translation and lack of bias in some of the world's major Bible versions, I can't remember where it was done but anyways the New World Translation was spoken of really highly, so I got it. Best part, it's free here: http://www.jw.org/index.html?option=QrYQZRQVNlVlYRYou can get a free MP3 or AAC. [Or if you want a real one just wait for a JW to show up, it's still free. Then you gotta deal with people though. (I like free stuff...)]

I dunno, what do Japanese speakers think of it?? It's supposed to be in each language's modern usage but still accurate...I've compared NWT with KJ and Gideons (can't remember the actual name...) It still requires a pretty decent vocabulary. I like that it makes it obvious which texts are considered spurious, handy dandy if you actually care whether a translator just added something in to make a monarch/overlord happy haha.

The NWT is an arguably biased version of the bible that was translated inaccurately in part to promote the specific beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses over that of accuracy, which seems to have been a shame considering that good scholarly work was done aside from that bias. That link above gives a number of reviews of it and includes examples of said bias.

Personally I tend to use the NIV for reference. And while some aspects of the NWT seem intriguing regarding its efforts at pedantic accuracy in some aspects, that laudable goal seems tainted by the numerous examples of eisegetical denominational bias in other aspects, which seems to severely undermine the reliability of the text over-all, as you would have to take extra effort to be aware of where the translation shifted from the scholarly to the biased (on top of the somewhat unnatural language used in it in their attempt at pedantic grammatical accuracy, which would seem to make it a slightly more uncomfortable read than versions like the NIV... and in fact from reading some of the NWT right now I can see where heated debates over exegesis vs eisegesis could start, something that does not belong here at all).

chikara wrote:

Cyborg Ninja wrote:...... By asking which is best, I really just had to keep the title short and hoped people would state the differences between the Japanese versions like I did above for the English ones.

Are the Japanese versions translations of the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts or translations of English translations of Greek and/or Latin translations?

It sounds like there were a variety done from many different sources, many including translations from more "modern" Chinese versions, or the King James Version, or the Latin Vulgate, or 16th Century Greek compilations, etc.

The "Japanese Living Bible" (1977) appears to be a translation directly from the English "The Living Bible" (1971), which was itself a paraphrase by a single man of the American Standard Version (1901), which was based on the Revised Version (1881-1895), which was in turn based on the King James Version (1611)...

The English "New Living Translation", which was update of "The Living Bible" that finally brought in Greek and Hebrew scholars to update the text, was not released until 1996, and as far as I can tell, none of the "Japanese Living Bible" versions were based off this version, but rather the older "Living Bible" referenced above, and all that entails.

It sounds as thought the "Japanese Living Bible" is much more popular than the Japanese Colloquial Version as far as I can tell from my cursory searching. So that one will probably be much easier to read, as it is geared much more toward ease of understanding than scholarly accuracy, if that's what you're shooting for.

(While I think it would be interesting to see comparisons of how the translation paraphrasing differs, and how one version might sound better to a Japanese reader, I want to make sure that the discussion stays on that topic rather than straying into any more religiously motivated discussion.)

With that said, since I can't read that level of Japanese I can't do any further research from possibly better sources to try to find out much more detail on the matter.

"6: We request that you do not discuss religion or politics, even in the off topic section, in order to reduce needless friction."

Just a reminder. So far this discussion seems to be of a relatively scholarly bent. Please keep it that way.

In closing, I think we should keep in mind that what Cyborg Ninja originally asked was:

Cyborg Ninja wrote:I have a copy of the Japanese Colloquial Version. I'm contrasting it to the Japanese Living Bible online. I notice a lot of difference between the two. I believe the latter takes more liberties with the translation, but I want to know which sounds best to Japanese readers? Below is the translation for 2 Corinthians 12:9.

Japanese Colloquial Version:ところが、主が言われた、「わたしの恵みはあなたに十分である。わたしの力は弱いところに完全にあらわれる」。

Cyborg Ninja wrote:Well, in English I like the NIV, the ESV and the RSV. The Revised Standard Version keeps some of the poetic style of the King James version, but it's outdated compared to the NIV and ESV. NIV is most readable out of the three. By asking which is best, I really just had to keep the title short and hoped people would state the differences between the Japanese versions like I did above for the English ones.

In short, I'm guessing that like they said about the NIV being the easiest to read (while still being very accurate), they just want to know which Japanese version would be the parallel of that... a good, fairly accurate, and yet easy to read version.

What this thread should not be about is modern day English translations of the bible (or pretty much anything else on the vein I touched on, such as textual criticism, eisegesis vs exegesis, etc), the type of discussion that could very likely be sparked by bringing up the Jehovah's Witness version of the bible, etc. If the conversation strays off the scholarly path, I'll be stepping back in and locking the topic. This forum isn't for proselytizing, it's for learning the Japanese language.

Please stick more carefully to the question(s) asked. If you feel the desire to digress into those other topics, please take it to PM (private messages). Thanks.

Phreadom, you used tons of words I don't know! But I agree with you, I think.Regarding the Japanese language, honestly, it's impossible for me to tell "which sounds better" by only reading those couple of lines without having a vast knowledge about the book. I for one respect both of them.

Whoa, sorry I didn't mean to bring religion into this at all! I mean, certain religions promote certain translations for sure, but because this is a strictly literary discussion and accuracy is pretty important to me I brought that up. And I'm so cheap/poor I thought the link was helpful. I didn't think mentioning that would upset anybody, I apologize. I'm supposed to know English and I don't understand about ten of the words phreadom used, lol. But I agree, no religion and politics in forums!

After some googling, I think the article I read was referring to this comparison work: Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament [Paperback]Jason David BeDuhn (Author) where he compares translations in major use, comparing the english used to the original language texts. Too bad there isn't a japanese scholar doing the same, you could just check a comparison book. Or maybe there is, I'll go googling again...

But are there any straight Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek-Coptic to Japanese translations out there? Maybe by the time I can consider looking at a Japanese bible (as in able to comprehend Japanese enough) more info will be around.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, there was a 1978 fransiscan translation from the Hebrew and Greek into Japanese. So that answers my question I guess. Now back to learning japanese for me, I think I should have stayed out of this thread!

I'm surprised a lot of Japanese Bibles don't translate from the original source, or at least the Seputagint. I noticed that the Japanese Colloquial Version was easier for me to read than the other translation. Maybe that's because it was such a close translation to the English language. I thought people would say the other translation was more colloquial Japanese than the Colloquial Version.

From what I remember the Japanese King James version is a translation based off the German copy of the King James version. I might be wrong though, but I seem to remember that many of the Biblical names were Germanic in nature..